That is a hilariously stupid response, especially in light of all but one already appearing in hi-def region free Blu-rays, meaning there are HD masters available and on the market for all but Deconstructing Harry

This was a really good listen. It made me sad to hear about his imagined film about Sidney Bechet that he realizes will never be a possibility. The optimist in me thinks that it could happen if he was determined to make it, because he's at a point in his career when he's earned the right to do some atypical, personal projects, and box-office success wouldn't be a concern. Just look at some of the odd things that filmmakers like Demme and Soderbergh have done, to name just two. It seems like he's possibly holding himself back to some extent, making the types of films that people expect Woody Allen to make, while, at the rate of a film per year, there could easily be some departures from his usual projects, if he wanted.But the reason it's sad is that Bechet lived such an interesting life—he grew up in a musical environment in New Orleans, played with originators of jazz such as King Oliver, Bunk Johnson, Freddie Keppard, toured on the American vaudeville circuit in the 1910s, lived in Europe extensively beginning in 1919, founded his own club in Harlem, did time in prison, composed a ballet, by all accounts had a somewhat difficult personality, which for some may present the "problem" of a somewhat unlikeable protagonist—I could go on. His music has been perpetually under-appreciated, perhaps because he lacked the public persona of Armstrong and Ellington, and this is especially true in America (he's more revered in France), where there is deep and longstanding interest in the music industry in reviving and keeping alive "traditional" and "old-timey" music that for some odd reason has never included jazz the way it has "folk," blues, country, and bluegrass. I guess the thing is that very few Americans actually appreciate instrumental music traditions, and if there's a soprano saxophone involved it has to be played by Kenny G. NPR has extensive jazz programming but almost never plays the 1920s-40s stuff, almost as if they'd be embarrassed to broadcast it. But guess who John Coltrane was listening to. Sidney Bechet.

Anyhow, Magic in the Moonlight is certainly one of Allen's least essential to see in theaters, so the low box office and lack of reception here doesn't surprise me. Although, as The Narrator Returns claimed, the cinematography is pretty great, so it has that going for it.

I am pretty sure you're (sadly) in the majority opinion on Melinda and Melinda around here, if that helps

I have yet to watch Melinda and Melinda, but given that my tastes in Allen align pretty closely to domino's (I like Cassandra's Dream a lot, for one), I have reasonably high hopes. It can't be worse than September, at least.

First of all, Melinda and Melinda is great, so how dare you. I think the reason most people haven't weighed in is that Allen films hardly scream out to be seen in a $13 movie theatre when one can wait a few months and get the same experience at home, where his small films invariably play just fine. Now, in a year's time, if no one's talking about the film, then draw conclusions

I don't wholly disagree, but I did go and see this movie at the neighborhood multiplex last Thursday night and was completely alone with it which was awesome, and elevated a mildly enjoyable movie to a pretty great way to spend an evening. It is a minor film, but quite satisfying.

Having seen all of his films, I can't say there are many that I actively dislike, other than some of the early funny ones...

This is the part of your post that surprises me. I have to assume that you don't think some of the "early funny ones" are funny at all, right? Did you find them funny, but still actively dislike them?

With the exception of Sleeper and Love and Death, if you even consider the latter to be one of his "early funny ones," I'm not particularly a fan of any of them. What's Up Tiger Lily? and Take the Money and Run are both terrible and devoid of laughs, while Bananas and Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex have some occasional funny moments, but are pretty stupid overall.

I only referred to them as his "early funny ones" as a reference to Stardust Memories and also because that seems to be how most people nowadays tend to refer to this grouping of Allen's films.

Agree with domino and others about Melinda and Melinda and Cassandra's Dream. I feel like most of late period Allen has been badly misjudged by mainstream critics and audiences. I'm tired of hearing how great Match Point is -- some say it's better than Crimes and Misdemeanors -- and likewise all those raves for the gorgeous but empty Midnight in Paris, while much of his better work from the same years goes largely ignored.

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pmLocation: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

criterion10 wrote:

...I only referred to them as his "early funny ones" as a reference to Stardust Memories...

I got that, but it's rare that an Allen fan would actively dislike this era. I agree that BANANAS and SEX are hit-and-miss, but TIGER LILY and TAKE THE MONEY are solid laugh-inducers for me. No argument that SLEEPER and LOVE & DEATH are the best of the early period.

I got that, but it's rare that an Allen fan would actively dislike this era. I agree that BANANAS and SEX are hit-and-miss, but TIGER LILY and TAKE THE MONEY are solid laugh-inducers for me. No argument that SLEEPER and LOVE & DEATH are the best of the early period.

Well, in my initial comment, I did write that I only actively dislike some of the early funny ones, mainly because Sleeper and Love and Death are two that I really like, the latter being one of Allen's best! (I thought Tiger Lily and Take the Money were both pretty bad, Bananas and Sex have occasional moments.)

I can't claim how rare it is that an "Allen fan would actively dislike this era," though I doubt it is out of left field; his early works are quite different from some of his latter ones.

I'm tired of hearing how great Match Point is -- some say it's better than Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I'd be one of those annoying people!

I agree that Midnight in Paris is fairly empty, though, and that Cassandra's Dream is kind of almost good.

I used to be a huge Woody fan in my youth but revisiting his whole oeuvre in chronological order recently has been somewhat (relatively) disillusioning. Several classics from the Woody Is Untouchable period (73 to 89, say) hadn't aged well. With Crimes, Allen's philosophizing is quite heavy-handed.

Here's the best-to-worst list I made based on my unapologetically subjective appreciation of them. (p.s. I don't give really high ratings easily, but I'm indulgent when it comes to giving the low ones. B- means a movie actually starts to suck.) It doesn't include the new one yet, or Tiger Lily, but includes Play It Again Sam.

With the discussion of what Woody Allen films do/don't suck now culminating in somebody posting their top 44 Woody Allen films I think we're getting pretty far off topic (which is *cough* Magic in the Moonlight). Maybe this can branch off into the Woody Allen thread?

Last edited by Dylan on Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.